Jeff Blumberg <jeffb@illovo.co.za> wrote:
>The problem with measurement, is that management use measures to control,
>not to learn. When used for control, management-by-the-numbers is nothing
>more than management-by-inspection. And we all know that control (whether
>for quality, or for cost) is built into the process, not inspected at the
>end of the process.
If what you're trying to control (i.e.: reduce) is variation within a
process (even a well-designed process), than your are not inspecting,
you're improving, and consequently, learning. (see the thread on capturing
lessons learned for more)
>.Managers are asking the wrong questions. They're
>looking for better measurements when that isn't the problem at all. Like
>Rus Ackoff said: we've got a lot of good solutions for the wrong problems.
>And I say, the problem is not measurement, the problem is management. We
>keep confusing measurement with management. Managers today need more
>ideas to balance the management system, not more metrics to balance the
>scorecard. (oh, and I know Balanced Scorecard advocates are now going to
>jump down my throat, but they miss the point, as did Richard Goodale miss
>yours).
A balanced checkbook keeps the repo man away, as does a balanced
scorecard. You cannot improve what you don't measure. That includes
smiles, even if the metric is intuitive. Much or the organizational
learning work is based on (or at least similarly derived) to Deming's
System of Profound Knowledge which use psychology, systems thinking, the
theory of variation, and the theory of knowledge as its underpinning. If
any of those elements are missing, the system is incomplete, ergo the
metrics (statistical NOT financial) by which we see the difference between
signals and noise.
-- John Zavacki jzavacki@wolff.com http://www.wolff.comLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>